# On the Ignorance of the Learned explained — Table-Talk

> Chapter companion for Table-Talk by William Hazlitt.

## What happens

Hazlitt argues that true learning is often divorced from practical wisdom, common sense, and genuine understanding of human nature. He contrasts the pedantic scholar, who knows only books and abstractions, with the uneducated person who possesses natural wit, eloquence, and a grasp of reality. He criticizes the learned for their pretensions, their reliance on authority, and their ignorance of art, nature, and life itself.

## Themes in this chapter

### Intellectual Superiority and Its Disadvantages

Hazlitt argues that the learned are often ignorant of real life, common sense, and practical arts, making their superiority hollow.

### The Nature of Learning and Pedantry

The essay distinguishes between true understanding and mere bookish knowledge, criticizing pedantry as a barrier to wisdom.

### Criticism and Critical Practice

Hazlitt critiques the learned for their reliance on authority and tradition rather than direct observation and reason.

## Character check-ins

### William Hazlitt

The author and speaker of the essay, presenting his critique of learned pedantry.

### William Shakespeare

Cited as an example of an uneducated mind with fresh imagination and natural morality.

### John Milton

Contrasted with Shakespeare as a scholastic thinker; also mentioned for solecisms in his Latin style.

### Richard Porson

Mentioned as an exception who united talents and knowledge with learning.

## Key lines

> The learned know nothing of the matter, either in town or country. Above all, the mass of society have common sense, which the learned in all ages want.

Scholars are ignorant of practical life, while ordinary people possess the common sense that the learned have always lacked.

_Hazlitt's central thesis contrasting learned ignorance with vulgar wisdom._

> Shakespeare’s was evidently an uneducated mind, both in the freshness of his imagination and in the variety of his views; as Milton’s was scholastic, in the texture both of his thoughts and feelings.

Shakespeare's genius came from his lack of formal education, giving him imaginative freshness, whereas Milton's learning shaped his more rigid style.

_Comparison of Shakespeare and Milton to illustrate the benefits of an unlearned mind._

> A mere scholar, who knows nothing but books, must be ignorant even of them. “Books do not teach the use of books.”

A scholar who only knows books is ignorant even of those books, because books alone cannot teach how to use them.

_Hazlitt's critique of the narrowness of purely bookish learning._

## Links

- HTML: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/table_talk_se/chapters/volume-i-on-the-ignorance-of-the-learned
- Book: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/table_talk_se
- All chapters: https://www.betterreads.online/discover/table_talk_se/chapters